get_clipboard_stats

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the exact return content and that sizes are human-readable (e.g. 1.2 MB) — which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting cost/pagination, but for a local no-arg stat call that is minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose, then safety, then return format, then the usage boundary — a sensible order with no filler. The enumeration of types is slightly long but earns its place by substituting for a missing output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (total count/size plus per-type breakdown, human-readable units). Combined with the usage boundary and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces 'no parameters', confirming no filtering or scoping is possible. Nothing further is needed or available.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (report) and resource (amount stored in local clipboard history), and the return shape distinguishes it from sibling readers like search_clipboard and get_paste_item. An agent knows exactly what this produces without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly scopes usage to 'an overview only' and names the two alternatives that cover other needs: search_clipboard for the items themselves and list_tags for tags. This is a textbook when/when-not routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.